Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

I should have the right to buy from my my to let landlord after 6 years here

533 replies

chocolatekatie · 17/05/2015 07:19

No government will ever do it as loads of them are into buy to let hence why they do all they can to prop up the bubble.

My landlord thinks he's some businessman doing me a favour by letting me live here. Actually he's the problem, he just had money so can afford to buy up property - push up the price and force people like me to rent.

OP posts:
juliascurr · 17/05/2015 13:45

yes, you should and btl shouldn't get preferential mortgage rates etc
why not if council tenants can?

minouwasminou · 17/05/2015 13:50

Suzanne...genuine Q, as I'm not the world's greatest economic brain.

What do you think the long-term effects of H2B will be on the rental market?
Also, if the govt sticks to its pledge of 200,000 new builds a year (or even 100,000), will thus not stabilise the market, especially given the fact that the ISA is capped at a maximum £200 per month deposit?

HolgerDanske · 17/05/2015 13:50

There are always going to be people who don't have any clue.

Superexcited · 17/05/2015 14:18

If the problem is simply the level of deposits that are required to get a mortgage then surely it would be better to lobby for an increased availability of 95% mortgages rather than focus on BTL landlords and rent costs.
I don't think it would be a good idea for mortgages to be anything above 95% because then we would see a return of people being irresponsible with their lending habits, but 95% and a clause included which means the borrower is liable for any outstanding amounts if the property is repossessed might work.
Only needing a 5% deposit was key to me getting my first home quickly. I could have saved 10% but as I was earning less than 10k it would have taken me extra time.

JassyRadlett · 17/05/2015 14:21

The trouble is also that as prices rise out of sync with incomes, the unaffordability of deposits also rises, regardless of the % required. And BTL drives up prices.

There's no one solution to this.

minouwasminou · 17/05/2015 14:22

Even with new homes being built? Or go you think this won't actually come to fruition?

Floggingmolly · 17/05/2015 14:23

The borrower is liable for outstanding amounts if the property is repossessed at the moment, aren't they?
Why would that make it "safer" for lenders?

You can only claw back according to someone's ability to pay; and people in repossession situations don't tend to be in a position to pay back the shortfall whilst being unable to keep up with the payments themselves.

Superexcited · 17/05/2015 14:28

Prices are not out of sync with incomes in all areas though. The area where I owned my first home has a lot of BTL properties but the house I owned has almost doubled in value since I bought it but the salaries paid by the company I worked for at that time have also doubled, partly to keep above the NMW as they increased wages when the NMW was introduced. Wages for most people are significantly more than they were back then.
There are lots of houses in Northern areas that haven't risen out of sync with incomes. I think people just look at the London and SE housing situation and apply it to the whole country.

Superexcited · 17/05/2015 14:30

The borrower is liable for outstanding amounts if the property is repossessed at the moment, aren't they?

Most people being repossessed will not have to pay any shortfall because they will be declared bankrupt. Maybe bankruptcy rules should be changed so people can't be discharged from mortgage debt for at least 15 years.

LotusLight · 17/05/2015 14:50

It used to be about 10 years before you got out of bankruptcy like Ireland and then the UK changed it to 1 year so people flock here from all over Europe to be made bankrupt - we are the bankruptcy capital of the EU as we have such lax rules now.

Super, yes a 5% deposit for your first novel in your 20s before you have children is much easier than a 10% when you are ten years older and also might have a child and want a bigger place and by which time prices have shot up. So advice to our teenagers ought to be buy as early as you can and before you have a family.

So if we are talking about my bit of outer London those 1 beds cost about £185k. If you are talking about the NE £38k 1 bed terraced in the road my mother lived on as a child. Very regional differences.

Floggingmolly · 17/05/2015 15:25

One year?? Shock

JassyRadlett · 17/05/2015 15:47

Super, I posted upthread about changes in affordability over the last 30 years. It's a national issue - influenced by but not limited to London and/or the SE. The ONS has regional breakdowns, I'm not able to get to them right now. Obviously effects will vary by individual area but there is an overall issue about affordability.

LotusLight · 17/05/2015 15:48

Yes, an awful message to people. The change came I think with the Enterprise Act 2002.

However that does not mean after a year people will be rushing to lend to you again. You may not even find it easy to open a bank account and I think it still prevents you from doing certain careers so I never tell anyone to rush off into bankruptcy if they can help it - never mind the moral issue that people should pay what they owe which I know is important to many people.

Superexcited · 17/05/2015 15:59

Yes lotus I am always staggered at the cost of housing in London and the SE. We do have some very expensive areas up here in the North too but plenty of cheaper areas (although some of those are not considered desirable enough for some people). Obviously a lot of people earn more in London than they do for similar jobs elsewhere, but not nearly enough to justify the vast difference in property prices. If we moved to London despite my DH being able to double his salary we wouldn't be able to buy a big enough property to meet our family needs and certainly wouldn't be able to match the house that we have now (can you buy a decent 4 bed house anywhere in London for £300k?)
I think the housing crisis in the SE is very different to the picture across most of the country. I think as a start we should stop foreign investors from being able to buy property in London as easily as they currently do (although I do realise that we can't really do that in a free market).
I really have no ideas of how to solve the London housing issue but I do think the current situation is inherently unfair on anybody who earns a normal salary. I don't want to see a capital city where ordinary folk are unable to live due to property prices.

JassyRadlett · 17/05/2015 16:13

nvestors from being able to buy property in London as easily as they currently do (although I do realise that we can't really do that in a free market).

I think it's a really good idea. Australia restricts foreign buyers to only buying new build homes, for example.

Superexcited · 17/05/2015 16:35

Well if it is possible jassy then I think it is something that should be looked at and implemented. I wonder what percentage of London based property is owned by foreign investors. If it is a significant amount then it must be one of the main reasons for such ridiculous increases in the property prices. Maybe we could allow foreign investors to buy but only if the are willing to pay a 50% tax on the purchase price and we could then invest that money into building affordable homes (ones that are actually affordable to mere mortals who earn normal salaries).

Andrewofgg · 17/05/2015 17:06

It can only be done for new-build which can also be the subject of covenants against BTL - although enforcing them might be another matter. In respect of existing houses the right of the owner to sell to whoever pays most prevails.

Thee can also be no restriction on sales to EU nationals which are not also imposed on UK nationals. So a covenant against BTL would have to allow EU owner occupiers.

Diamond23 · 17/05/2015 17:06

"jassy correction not 'state owned', but 'state regulated and publicly funded' and run alongside council housing schemes."

Throughthickandthin

Housing association properties are not publicly funded- no more so than any landlord who accepts housing benefit. State regulated doesn't mean anything- most things are? Nearly every industry has a watchdog / regulator.

Those saying if she can buy her house she can buy any- under RTB you usually use your discount as a deposit, so don't need to save one. So you may be able to buy a RTB but not have a deposit for a property on the open market.

All OP is doing is illustrating how ridiculous the governments proposal to force HAs to sell to their tenants under RTB is.

LotusLight · 17/05/2015 17:10

Most people now and 30 years ago when I bought don't buy in Central London as it's expensive. The 3 bed terraced we first bought 30 years ago which then only two full time professional salaries would buy in zone 5 outer London costs about £375k today. However as I say one bed flats are about £185k so it's not impossible to purchase for some but I certainly agree it is hard and I was very against last year's 2014 mortgage changes which make it much harder to get a mortgage. People and banks instead should be able to take their own risks rather than have random criteria applied by regulators.

Andrewofgg · 17/05/2015 17:14

Agree LotusLight but then if they don't meet the repayments lenders should not have to wait months and months and jump through endless hoops before getting possession. That's savers' money not being repaid.

JassyRadlett · 17/05/2015 17:28

Lotus, I've posted the change in affordability in London (all of it) on the last 30 years l on two threads you've been on recently. Which bits do you think the ONS has made up?

I'm a homeowner, but bright enough, humble enough and aware enough to know that while I worked incredibly hard for it, I'm also very lucky and very privileged to be in this position; people coming along even five or ten years later find it much harder when all other aspects are equal.

TheChandler · 17/05/2015 17:30

Well YANBU obviously OP - why do you have to have this particular house? Are you one of these mumsnetters who claims to be particularly attached to their current home and inexplicably unable to leave it? Couldn't you just buy a similar house, that is actually for sale, like other people do? Or is it that you think you should get a massive discount for this one, similar to council house sales? Which is a different point entirely, surely.

Its so boring reading these sort of revolutionary viewpoints on mumsnet - "we're much cleverer than all of you pathetic higher rate taxpaying, full-time employed, home owning scum" - "if we shout loudly and aggressively enough, we'll get our own way". I often wonder if its what happened to those kids at school who tried to disrupt everyone else's schooling and bring you down to the same level as them. Serious point!

LotusLight · 17/05/2015 17:33

Jassy, yes I know it's hard to buy these days but not impossible. Plenty of mumsnetters manage to and a lot of us give a lot of very useful guidance about things like lowering expectations, use of mortgage brokers, moving to a rough area to get started etc etc

JassyRadlett · 17/05/2015 17:35

Indeed. But pretending that it's not getting more and more difficult is frankly nonsense, head-in-the-sand stuff.

Diamond23 · 17/05/2015 17:38

I think we covered why you can't buy a similar house- deposit. Also don't know why people are so stuck on 10%- I bought a year ago and no mortgages were available for less than 15% deposit. I'd say if that's changed it's not widespread.

However, I will take exception with the idea that is rare to get a mortgage post 2008. As has been pointed out, people buy houses and get mortgages every day.

I got a mortgage a year ago. London suburbs, just under £300k. Don't get me wrong- I had a deposit, and I earn a decent salary.
But I'm not unusual, particularly. Every company will have a number of people earning what I do.